131–140 of 167 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But that mindset is exactly why we're in a post-truth era. If a news outlet's primary goal is convincing people to do the right thing rather than accurately communicating information, why should we trust that the information they communicate is accurate?
Doing the right thing and accurate information can be one in the same.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fear sells. This is tragic, but the exception to the rule. To add some weight to your argument, the official stats from italy offer clear data [1]: - 1.1% of deaths in Italy - No deaths - 99% with comorbidities, 75% with at least 2 comorbidities. [1] https://www.epicentro.iss.it/coronavirus/bollettino/Report-C...
I don't understand the 99% statistic. It is hard to imagine that any measurement, where errors and odd cases are inevitable, is almost exactly 100%
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is trying to counter misconceptions that COVID-19 is harmless to young healthy people based on misinterpretations of guidance that elderly and those with preexisting conditions are most at risk. Just because younger people are at less risk doesn't mean they have no risk. While the numbers have been hard to pin down, early data from China showed that more than 10% of people in their 20s-40s with the disease had cri…
I think I read that statistic differently - that of the critical cases, 10-14% were between 20 to 40. Not a per-capita number. Not a percentage of young people - a percentage of sick people. Folks in that wide age bracket are around 30% of the US total population. The old - 15%?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The answer being sought is just how deadly is this virus? Knowing that helps everyone plan, and thus far, mortality rates haven't been very high at all except in very vulnerable populations. However, should the virus mutate, or otherwise start posing a larger problem to the general public, the calculus of just how under-prepared are we radically changes. It has nothing to do with blame and everything to do with deali…
A mortality rate of 2-3% is "very high". And it's not just "very vulnerable populations". I'm 55, in generally good shape, but I have (medically controlled) hypertension. So my odds of dying are like 5%. My daughter is 26, and winds up in the ER once a year or so for asthma. What are her odds? My mother is 78, has had open heart surgery, and is overweight and gets almost no exercise. I'm more or less assuming I will…
Keep in mind that 2-5% is likely way overblown given how little testing has been done. Unless I am misinformed, the Diamond Princess cruise that had been infected and quarantined had a fatality rate under 1%, and that presumably had a more vulnerable population. A more realistic mortality rate is well below 1% https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-a...
In either case, I am actually more vulnerable than the standard healthy young adult, and it is very easy to say that mortality rates havent been high, especially in the context of a discussion over whether the virus might be mutating to become even more deadly than it already is.
It seems that anecdotal evidence of young people dying of COVID-19 is the trend of the moment. Not sure if it's just cheap clickbait or the goal is to make younger generations to actually care about social distancing. The deal is that we are dealing with the power of large numbers. You can cherry-pick whatever case you want to fit your narrative. It does not mean its relevant information.
Anecdotally, my parents keep bringing up this narrative every time we talk on the phone. I've reminded them that while me and my fiance dutifully haven't left the house since last Sunday they've happily gone to the grocery store multiple times, attended a funeral, and had wine at their neighbor's house. They also refused to stop babysitting my niece and nephew until I called my brother and convinced him to stop dropp…
It seems that anecdotal evidence of young people dying of COVID-19 is the trend of the moment. Not sure if it's just cheap clickbait or the goal is to make younger generations to actually care about social distancing. The deal is that we are dealing with the power of large numbers. You can cherry-pick whatever case you want to fit your narrative. It does not mean its relevant information.
It is relevant information when the previous narrative was that 0 young people had died of COVID, and that the “only” old people who had died had co-morbidity factors. BTW, this isn’t “anecdotal evidence”. This is an actual, verifiable data point.
You’ve moved the goalposts to say that if it kills even one young person then young people generally are at risk. The claim was never that zero young people have died. Just vanishingly few.
DR. BIRX (March 23, 2020):
"In the mortality data that has been provided to us, there has been no child under 15 that has succumbed to the virus in Europe. There was the one 14-year-old in China. So we still see that there is less severity in children, and so that should be reassuring to the moms and dads out there.
To Generation Z and to my millennial colleagues who have been really at the forefront of many of these responses: Less than 1 percent of all the mortality is less than 50. And so this is, I think, also a very important point.
That doesn’t mean that individuals won’t have severe disease. So still 99 percent of all the mortality coming out of Europe, in general, is over 50, and preexisting conditions. The preexisting condition piece still holds in Italy, with the majority of the mortality having three or more preexisting conditions."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fear sells. This is tragic, but the exception to the rule. To add some weight to your argument, the official stats from italy offer clear data [1]: - 1.1% of deaths in Italy - No deaths - 99% with comorbidities, 75% with at least 2 comorbidities. [1] https://www.epicentro.iss.it/coronavirus/bollettino/Report-C...
This is insane -- Median age of 60 for diagnosed patients? What this indicates to me is that Italy was testing only the worst patients. This whole scare to me reeks of sampling bias. We only test the worst patients for covid 19 which ups the mortality rate. The truth is -- people who are at risk should social distance themselves rather than the general population. We want herd immunity to develop for this disease --…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anecdotally, my parents keep bringing up this narrative every time we talk on the phone. I've reminded them that while me and my fiance dutifully haven't left the house since last Sunday they've happily gone to the grocery store multiple times, attended a funeral, and had wine at their neighbor's house. They also refused to stop babysitting my niece and nephew until I called my brother and convinced him to stop dropp…
I've been hearing "I rather die from Coronavirus than live my life in fear of it" from some at risk people who don't wish to isolate. Which I suppose is their decision. They'll unfortunately change their tack pretty fast when it becomes hard to breathe.
Infecting others who have no option to completely isolate or are just plain unlucky. Some of which will have possibly life-long lung damage. And some will die who would have otherwise survived.
Responsible people isolate, because they don't want to harm or worse, kill others.